Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

I think one of the real shames about this election is it's focus on ultimately meaning buzzwords, instead of the actual issues and policies the candidates stand for. "Maverick," "celebrity,"...they may make good attack ads, but they don't make good presidents.

One of the reasons I'm leaning towards Obama is his stance on foreign policy. I think we need direct diplomatic relations with Iran. The Bush administrations "no talks" policy has really hurt us in the long run, even though it may make for good speeches. In 2003, the president of Iran was the moderate Khatami, and he offered an extremely generous peace proposal to the Bush administration. They basically offered to stop all military action and terrorist funding in the region, in exchange for the US ending sanctions and hostility against Iran. And the Bush administration never even replied to it, at all.

Because of the current US administration's refusal to deal with Iran, the moderates lost political clout and the hardliner-s have taken over...people like Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president you see in the news saying he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and stuff like that. But we still have a chance to increase the power of the moderates again...Ahmadinejad's economic policies have turned out poorly, leading to lots of internal criticism against him, even in his own party. Plus, in the last election the reformists gained seats. We NEED greater diplomatic influence in Iran, and that's what Obama stands for. Being pointlessly antagonistic just increases the power of the hard-liners...they want America to be the Great Satan, because that's how they get people to vote for them...by using America as a sort of scapegoat to conceal their bad policies for the Iranian people. McCain is the one who sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb bomb Iran" as a sinister joke. I'd rather appeal to the moderates and try to build them back up to their political strength of 2003 instead of just starting WWIII.

Btw, there are some interesting interviews with Khatami online, I suggest you read them if you're interested in Iranian politics. (As we all should be in this important times of potential international conflict)

You know, that in the event of Mccain being unable to become president, she will take over, so being a VP is a very important thing and not just some side show. Not only are you saying a first term Governor is experienced enough but Obama isnt, but your also saying you personally trust one to take over for you. Oh, and Mccain opposes equal pay for women and pro-life. Just because she is a women, doesn't mean her party supports women. If you even want to call yourself a Hillary supporter, then you cannot trample all over her ideals and pick the man who is against giving women a chance in America.

But Palin does have some experience and she has executive experience, unlike Obama. An inexperienced VP, nonetheless is less severe than an inexperienced president like Obama would be. She would have time to get the hang of the job before the unlikely event of her stepping in for the president. That would be something though... to have a woman president

It seems like I'm not the only one to think that Sarah Palin is a major breakthrough for women's rights. On a different forum, CleverTalkers.com, it seems like all the women are saying that Palin is a big step forward for feminism and women's equality. More equality than Obama.

People really don't vote for their qualification when looking at president most of the time, as long as the candidate appeals to the common men they will most likely vote for them. Or they vote for candidate who yell change when the majority of the people are unhappy .
The alternatives as in Carter or the person running in 1984? I would understand if people voted for Reagan in first term but I think he was a mediocre president and really can't see why people voted for him for his second term. From what I studied his domestic policies were pretty much failure and even success of his foreign policy is debatable.

But Palin does have some experience and she has executive experience, unlike Obama. An inexperienced VP, nonetheless is less severe than an inexperienced president like Obama would be. She would have time to get the hang of the job before the unlikely event of her stepping in for the president. That would be something though... to have a woman president

It seems like I'm not the only one to think that Sarah Palin is a major breakthrough for women's rights. On a different forum, CleverTalkers.com, it seems like all the women are saying that Palin is a big step forward for feminism and women's equality. More equality than Obama.

I think I pretty much agree with them. I wonder why anyone would think otherwise.

Where were these women for Geraldine Ferraro? The truth is, Palin is not the first nor is she a major breakthrough for the VP position. Hillary Clinton was infinitely more groundbreaking than Palin.

If executive experience was such a huge deal, then she already has more than McCain. Why isn't she running for President then? Obama is just more experienced and it takes some real spin to say Palin has more than him. Heck, I've seen principals run schools with several thousand kids who probably had a tougher job than running a small town of 7000. I'm not going to say that's the experience needed for President or VP.

I'm all for a woman president but it has to be the right woman. In my opinion, Palin is not the right woman.

An inexperienced VP, nonetheless is less severe than an inexperienced president like Obama would be.

To repeat the dems talking point: She is one heartbeat away from president. Therefore, this argument is pretty much just washing words. Of course everybody assumes nothing will go wrong with a president and the position is there so a chain of command is established should something happen.

That said, judging people for president based on "experience" has been proven to be flawed. Some of the worst presidents in our history have been true established statesmen such as Nixon and Ford. (See here for more on experience vs presidential quality.)

Quote:

She would have time to get the hang of the job before the unlikely event of her stepping in for the president.

Same error as above. You assume everything will go right. If say, it snows, he catches pneumonia, and dies 30 days later, now what? (President Harrison, 1841)

Quote:

It seems like I'm not the only one to think that Sarah Palin is a major breakthrough for women's rights. On a different forum, CleverTalkers.com, it seems like all the women are saying that Palin is a big step forward for feminism and women's equality. More equality than Obama.

...and there is absolutely no logical grounding to their arguments. As mentioned in the article in my previous post, she was picked to try and pick off Clinton supporters who will vote just because there is a woman on a ticket. If they really wanted to make a huge step forward for equality, there were far more qualified female candidates for VP out there. (And no, Clinton is not one of them. She would have been Cheney v2.)

But Palin does have some experience and she has executive experience, unlike Obama. An inexperienced VP, nonetheless is less severe than an inexperienced president like Obama would be. She would have time to get the hang of the job before the unlikely event of her stepping in for the president. That would be something though... to have a woman president

It seems like I'm not the only one to think that Sarah Palin is a major breakthrough for women's rights. On a different forum, CleverTalkers.com, it seems like all the women are saying that Palin is a big step forward for feminism and women's equality. More equality than Obama.

I think I pretty much agree with them. I wonder why anyone would think otherwise.

No, it is completely wrong to assume that she will have 4 or 8 or however many years to learn the job. Being VP means you must take over at any time, including if they get assassinated during the election time (which has happened). Is she ready now? And i doubt her "experiance" is any better than obama seeing as how she asked on camera what a vice president is suppose to do. And the majority of women who say that she supports women's right are the majority that don't examine the actual stance of the candidates and only look at the physical candidate. She is against abortion and is pro life, and Mccain is against equal pay for women and pro-life as well.

Imo, having a black president is even more of a breakthrough than having a female president, what with all the racism against blacks that has gone on in the US virtually since its inception. That would've made Condoleezza Rice look really good. It's too bad she dropped out of the elections. My point is that white people, men or women, were once considered to be on a much higher social status than black people, and Palin just happens to be white.

Imo, having a black president is even more of a breakthrough than having a female president, what with all the racism against blacks that has gone on in the US virtually since its inception. That would've made Condoleezza Rice look really good. It's too bad she dropped out of the elections. My point is that white people, men or women, were once considered to be on a much higher social status than black people, and Palin just happens to be white.

PS: I'm caucasian

uptill 1920 all women were not allow to vote. A black man has a right a vote even through there were laws in place trying to prevent him form voting he still has that right.

McCain picked Palin to pick up the women vote which would have otherwise went to Obama. By swinging some women voters away from Obama, he pretty much guarantees his inauguration. I doubt he'll lose any voters because of her inexperience because she is just the VP afterall. Obama is inexperienced but he is running for President which is a bigger problem than an inexperienced VP. I was going to vote for Hillary, but when she didn't get nominated I figured Obama. But I want to see a woman in office and possibly become president. So now I changed my mind and decided that McCain is the way to go.

But issues-wise, she is the complete polar opposite of Clinton. You'd be going from Hillary, to anti-Hillary.

No the issues do not matter in the slightest to some people. As Samantha Bee has said, "Palin is a Vagina-American", so women will vote for her because she has a vagina (Samantha Bee Voting McCain). While this is played to comedic effect in the skit, there are some people that do believe this (just see all the rabid Clinton supporters that MSNBC/CNN/FOX focused on last Monday and Tuesday at the DNC), and these people (both women and men) will vote for whatever woman is present.

At least it's consistent. I never really got the "unless it's rape or incest" thing. If you're against abortion (for the record, I'm for it) because you think a foetus is a human being with all the rights entailed, then what does it matter if it's the result of rape or incest? Abortion's still murder.

I find her views on sex-ed and contraception stupid and harmful. It results in things like, well, her daughter being stuck with a baby and a husband at 17. And worse. But at least she thinks it's for everybody - not just the poor who can't afford to take a quick trip to a state or country that's more permissive.

Hurricane Gustav brings an interesting dilemma into the race for both campaigns.

Will McCain suffer because his convention is being overshadowed by the hurricane? Or will it help him because he gets to show that he cares more about the misfortunes of people than his own convention?

And how will people react to Obama's decision to stay away from the region? Will they accept his reasoning that if he were to go there it would only serve as a distraction? Or will they think that Obama it too detached from ordinary Americans to help them out?